Re: gcc 3.2 epoch?
Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> writes:
> > If they were really that invisible, I wouldn't be complaining, 'cause I
> > wouldn't have noticed the change! Really they _do_ show up, and they're
> > an ugly wart.
>
> I would like to know where it would show up, because that
> would probably want fixing.
It shows up places you can't or probably don't want to fix -- e.g.,
posts in debian-devel, filenames used by the packaging system (and the
installation process includes the filenames in its output, so users can
see them), the output of apt-cache, etc.
In all these cases it would be _dangerous_ to remove the epoch, because
they present information that a debian packager might be going to use,
and he needs to know the epoch.
In other words, you can't just get rid of the problem by hiding it:
epochs are ugly, and they're always going to be ugly.
-Miles
--
Is it true that nothing can be known? If so how do we know this? -Woody Allen
Reply to: